Moat Homes Limited (202513876)

Decision
Case ID	202513876
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Moat Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord who lives with her 2 children. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has informed the landlord that she has a condition which affects the tendons on the thumb side of her wrist.

What the complaint is about

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
2. A silverfish infestation.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a silverfish infestation.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

While the landlord did undertake inspections of the property to try to identify the cause of the damp and mould, it did not adhere to the timescales in its damp and mould policy on each occasion. It also failed to provide the resident with further details of the actions it would take following the end of the monitoring period which it agreed to in its stage 2 response.

Silverfish infestation

The landlord has provided evidence that it has carried out a number of inspections as well as instructing pest controllers to attend to the property to carry out treatment where necessary. While the resident has provided the landlord with photos of silverfish, it was unable to locate any of them during the inspections which were carried out and which have continued post the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not issue any acknowledgment following the resident’s escalation request after receiving the stage 1 response. It did not provide its final response in time.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid direct to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

26 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows:

£500 to recognise the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould.
£100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid direct to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

26 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should arrange to meet with the resident to discuss further actions to address the silverfish in the property. It should listen to her feedback for the works undertaken to date and agree the actions it will be taking going forward.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 February 2025	The resident made an online complaint to the landlord. She said: Despite reporting an issue with a silverfish infestation a year earlier the issue remained unresolved. This was despite multiple visits from the landlord’s operatives including pest control. The issue was causing her distress and inconvenience especially as she had 2 young children including an infant who frequently played on the floor. She understood the underlying cause might be due to damp, humidity or a structural defect which she wanted the landlord to investigate. She added that 2 of the doors in the property were difficult to open and close.
4 March 2025	The landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said: The resident had reported an issue with silverfish on 24 May 2024. A damp and mould case had also been raised by it on 28 May 2024. Pest control had attended in December 2024 and provided guidance to the resident on minimising the presence of silverfish. After the resident had informed it on 10 February 2025 that the silverfish issue was continuing, it had instructed its operative on 3 March 2025 to assess and address the key areas including access as well as damp and mould issues which could be contributing to the problem. It added the operative would be in touch directly with the resident.
14 March 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said: The landlord’s operative had contacted her on 13 March 2025 and offered to come out on the same day. This was not suitable and despite informing the resident that a rescheduled appointment would be arranged she had not heard back from them. The silverfish issue was raised by her prior to May 2024. Despite this she had not received any direct calls to assess the impact this issue had on her and her family. No compensation had been offered to her for the matter. The landlord had failed to address the issue of the swollen doors which she had raised as part of her complaint.
20 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It offered £350 compensation to the resident. It said: It had carried out inspections in January 2024 and in June 2024 which had not identified any leaks. The second inspection found the ventilation system was not working correctly. However, when its operative attended it found the system was working. Following the resident raising further concerns over the silverfish in February 2025 its operative attended on 7 April 2025 and identified the heat in the property was extremely high and this needed to be addressed. The individual looking after the case had left the organisation and this had delayed any follow up actions. It apologised for this. Due to lease restrictions, it could not install an air conditioning system into the property. Instead, it proposed installing environmental monitoring equipment to monitor the temperature, humidity and ventilation patterns in the property. This would allow it to take targeted action. It would continue the silverfish treatment if required.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us and said: The issue was still not resolved and she felt it was linked to damp or underlying factors in the property as well as the wider block. She wanted an independent environmental inspection to establish the root cause of the infestation. The landlord has not during any of the inspections removed the bath panels or inspected the toilet area which she felt might identify the source of the moisture issue.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing as well as that of her children. She has linked the medical conditions the children have directly to the damp and mould issues and the silverfish infestation. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, the landlord must consider what action it should take if any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
The landlord has accepted that the resident initially reported the issue of the silverfish infestation (which can be a sign of damp) in November 2023. It said it responded to this by arranging an inspection which was carried out on 29 January 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to have arranged an inspection, this did not take place until 2 months after the incident was reported. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which set out that it would assess the severity of damp and mould in accordance with HHSRS as either severe, moderate or slight and that it would arrange an appointment within a maximum of 28 days for slight damp and mould cases.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the inspection report nor of its communication with the resident at the time including the original reporting of the issue by the resident. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not the delay in carrying out the inspection was due in part to the resident not being available at an earlier time. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not always been the case here. The absence of records amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord has said in its stage 2 response that the inspection in January 2024 did not identify any damp or mould, and neither could it find any sign of a silverfish infestation. As a result, it closed down the damp and mould case although it advised the resident to contact it if the issue arose again. The landlord’s approach was reasonable if it had not observed any signs of damp and mould in the property. Although a copy of the inspection report has not been provided the resident has not disputed that she did not raise the matter again until several months later. This would support the landlord’s account that there was no obvious sign of damp and mould.
Following the resident having contacted the landlord again in May 2024 it acted appropriately in arranging another inspection. This was carried out on 28 June 2024, outside the landlord’s timescales in its damp and mould policy. While the resident had been contacted on 6 June 2024, within 14 days of raising the matter to ask about a suitable time for an appointment to which she responded, the appointment was not arranged for a further 3 weeks. This was not appropriate especially as the landlord would have been aware that this was a second reporting of the issue in a matter of months.
The resident informed the landlord during the inspection on 28 June 2024 that there had been a leak from the property above hers the previous year. The inspection report noted this, but it could not find any evidence of damp and mould in the property. It did however note that the boost function in the ventilation system installed in the property was not working correctly. It arranged for a job to be raised for this as it considered that moisture was not being extracted efficiently due to this. This was appropriate action for it to take.
The landlord’s operative confirmed on 1 July 2024, that the boost function in the ventilation system was working correctly. The landlord was entitled to rely upon the opinion of its operative who had attended the property. As the resident did not come back to it for several months, the landlord acted appropriately in closing the damp and mould case.
While the resident contacted the landlord about the silverfish in late October 2024, she did not raise concerns about damp until she raised her complaint on 12 February 2025. In her complaint she mentioned issues with 2 of her doors which were swollen and difficult to open and close, especially with her vulnerability. The landlord made arrangements to raise another inspection which took place on 31 March 2025. This was again outside of the timescales in the landlord’s damp and mould policy; from the point the resident had raised her concerns.
The landlord has provided no explanation as to why it could not arrange the inspection at an earlier time. This was a missed opportunity by it to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns over the issue seriously. Instead, it only appeared to take action following it issuing the stage 1 response.
The landlord’s damp and mould inspection report from 31 March 2025 noted no indication of any damp and mould. However, the report only referred to the bathroom, so it was not clear whether the inspection had covered the other rooms in the property. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord as it would have been aware the resident had been reporting the presence of silverfish (and possibly damp) in other rooms apart from the bathroom. The inspection report should have gone into more detail about the areas which were observed for the presence of damp and mould as well as commenting on the swollen doors which in itself could have been a sign of damp.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it was unable to install air conditioning into the property due to the lease restrictions. Given this it was appropriate for it to look into alternative options to try to minimise the risk of damp and mould. The landlord agreed to place monitoring equipment into the property. This was reasonable action for it to take as this could help it to assess the issue of damp, and more importantly where it was in the property. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with any information concerning how long this equipment would be in place and what actions it would take following the end of the monitoring. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord in its stage 2 response again omitted the issue of the swollen doors. This was a failing as it was aware that this was part of the complaint raised by the resident. The landlord did point out a significant period of time later that the tenancy agreement set out that the internal doors were the responsibility of the resident and not it. However given the circumstances of the complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to consider making repairs to these, especially as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and the impact this would have on her in opening and closing doors.
We understand that the resident has recently confirmed that the landlord has completed the repairs to the doors as a gesture of goodwill. While it is reasonable for it to have done this, it should have addressed the issue sooner.
The landlord offered £350 compensation in its stage 2 response. It did not provide a breakdown of how this amount had been calculated. The landlord said the compensation was for the delays as well as the inconvenience caused to the resident. While the landlord acknowledged the delays it did not deal with the issue of the swollen doors until significantly after the end of its complaint process. This was despite the resident repeatedly making it aware of the issue and the impact it was having due to her vulnerability. The landlord also did not provide the resident with further information on the actions it would take following the end of the monitoring.
Given this the landlord’s offer cannot be considered as reasonable redress. We have made an award of £500 for this issue. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we acknowledge the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint	The handling of the silverfish infestation
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has informed the resident in its stage 1 response that silverfish are not harmful to people. We understand that while this may be the case, the presence of them, especially in a household with young children would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Silverfish are usually found in moist areas of a home such as the bathroom or kitchen. Their presence can be a sign of damp.
The resident’s tenancy agreement does not set out which party is responsible for dealing with pests within the property. However, the landlord’s pest control policy sets out that in the event of silverfish being present in a property that it needed to raise a damp and mould case. This would suggest that the landlord was responsible for dealing with the matter. This approach is aligned with the Service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
The landlord’s records show that upon being informed of the issue of silverfish the landlord carried out a number of inspections to try to identify the source of the infestation. This was appropriate action for it to take although the first inspection did not occur until 2 months after the resident had initially reported the issue in November 2023. In addition to carrying out inspections the landlord also referred the matter to its pest contractor who attended to the property and carried out a number of treatments. These occurred in December 2024 and April 2025 however the resident said this had not eradicated the issue.
In addition to this the landlord had also agreed to monitor the humidity in the property. This was reasonable action for it to take as high humidity may help to explain the presence of silverfish.
Overall, while the landlord did take 2 months to initially carry out an inspection of the property it did act reasonably in arranging for its pest contractor to treat the resident’s property for silverfish as well as looking into proofing the property as a means of stopping further silverfish activity. It has also committed to carry on treating the silverfish issue following the end of its complaints process.
The resident has questioned the treatment used by the pest contractor as she says the traps it has used are not effective and she can see the silverfish actively avoiding them. While the landlord is entitled to rely upon the expertise of its pest contractor in dealing with the matter it may be appropriate for it meet with the resident to discuss further action to address the silverfish issue. This can help it to both rebuild its relationship with the resident as well as it looking to find a suitable and appropriate resolution to the issue.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our statutory Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process. It also requires them to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these expectations.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days in keeping with the Code. It issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, in keeping with the timescales in the Code.
Following the resident’s escalation request on 14 March 2025, the landlord did not issue an acknowledgment. This was despite the resident chasing up on the matter on 4 occasions between 1 April 2025 and 4 May 2025. This was not in keeping with the Code. The landlord has explained that the individual handling the resident’s complaint at stage 1 had left. However, the resident did not receive any response to her emails to inform her of this and so would not have been aware of this. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response until 20 June 2025; this was 66 working days after the resident’s escalation request and 33 working days after her last email which was addressed to the customer service team. This was significantly outside the timescales as set out in the Code.
The landlord in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not address the issue of the swollen doors. This was despite it being clear that this was part of the resident’s complaint. While it did address the matter following the end of the complaints process and eventually agreed to carry out repairs to the doors, the omission of this in its formal responses was a failing by it.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to put matters right. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained. This should include details of its inspections as well as communication with the resident including the initial reporting of the matter. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor. There were gaps during which it failed to provide her with updates. While the landlord acknowledged some of these failings as it said that the individual dealing with the matter at stage 1 was no longer employed by it, there were still further gaps in its communication. The landlord also did not provide any timetable to events following the monitoring equipment being placed into the property. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system as well as fostering transparency and trust, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.